Sentencing: It shouldn't be just about money

California has spent the past two decades learning a harsh, expensive lesson: The state does not have the financial resources to keep pace with the consequences of the hard-line sentencing laws imposed in the 1990s.

The Supreme Court's mandate that the state release 33,000 prisoners from its $10 billion prison system confirms the insanity of trying to house nearly 120,000 prisoners at an annual cost of $47,000 per inmate. Politicians have long known that comprehensive sentencing reform is the solution, but have largely balked for fear of being labeled soft on crime. Until now.

The compromise between Gov. Jerry Brown and Republican and Democratic legislative leaders on prison overcrowding creates a rare opportunity for California to seriously address the issue.

"It's pivotal," Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said. "This deal takes the focus away from the capacity of our prison system and creates space for a real debate on sentencing reform."

The challenge will be crafting new sentencing laws that deter crime, provide a fair punishment for criminal transgressions and reduce the state's 65 percent recidivism rate -- the highest in the nation. The national average is about 45 percent.

Fortunately, California can look to other states, including Minnesota, as models. Minnesota's approach, endorsed by the American Bar Association, has produced one of the lowest imprisonment rates in the nation, and its prison system costs taxpayers only $457 million a year. This suggests California could save billions of dollars every year by taking a similar approach.

The state uses a permanent commission to monitor sentencing based on fairness and available prison capacity, and gets treatment for nonviolent criminals with drug problems, rather than automatically locking them up.

There is little evidence to prove that keeping someone in prison for five years, rather than, say, four, prevents him or her from committing another crime. A study released by the Stanford Three Strikes Project shows that the 1,000 prisoners released early due to Proposition 36, which we endorsed, and fortunately so did voters, have a lower-than-expected recidivism rate, saving taxpayers more than $10 million.

Inmates who receive treatment for drug addiction or mental illness, who remain connected to their families and can find employment, are much less likely to return to a life of crime.

California can't afford to incarcerate all prisoners its sentencing laws create. The prison population increased by 500 percent from 1982 to 2000, an unsustainable rate of growth. In 1982, the prisons were already overcrowded.

Although the courts will need to approve the compromise, California should never have put itself in this position. But like many criminal justice decisions, this compromise was based at least in part on politics. Then money. And, finally, public safety. We're not clear in which order they are weighed, but have known for some time that California's leaders often do not deal adequately with how to address crime. If money were no object, perhaps other priorities took precedent. That is no longer the case.

Comprehensive sentencing reform is the logical next step for California to create a sustainable, efficient and just state prison system. Maybe we can leave politics out of it.